EFT potentials and SRCs: Q&A Dick Furnstahl 2nd Workshop on Quantitative Challenges in SRC and EMC Research MIT, March, 2019 * Have thought a lot about this general issue: how to use a low-resolution description of nuclei, which generally means only long wavelengths and is in terms of soft potentials and nonrelativistic many-body physics, when you have a high-resolution (short-wavelength) probe. What can you learn and how to carry out the analysis in practice? * In QCD hard scattering we know how to do this; we have to extract the soft part (of interest) and relate at different scales (for experiment or because we can calculate there -- check recent lattice). The operator product expansion (OPE) and the renormalization group (RG) are key tools here. Question: how do we use the analogs for low-energy effective theories? * Not the *only* way to think about things but a particularly fruitful way: understanding and predicting correlations; separating what is process dependent from nucleus (A) dependent; what is long-distance and what is short distance. * In a field theory manifested through operator product expansion and renormalization group * Some of this will counter statements that something is missing from the low-resolution description, but mostly want to focus on the opportunities.

Questions you might ask about EFT, RG, and SRCs Why are there so many different chiral EFT interactions out there now? What are the differences between phenomenological and EFT interactions? If there are good phenomenological NN interactions, why use an EFT? Do we expect high momentum distributions in nuclei to agree? What is relevant for SRCs in the EFT paradigm? What is an OPE and how is it relevant to SRC physics? What happens to UV physics like SRCs with RG evolution? What scale and scheme should we use? Is off-shell physics measurable? No, but it can be exploited! Is high momentum in a SRC like high density nucleonic matter? Is there a “hard core” in chiral EFT NN interactions? Is the EMC effect unexpected from the EFT perspective? Theme: a field theory perspective can help to clarify what we might extract from experiment and how to constrain models and make everything more quantitative. Key questions: how do we relate results at different scales?

If there are good phenomenological NN interactions, why use an EFT? Why are there so many different chiral EFT interactions out there now? What are the differences between phenomenological and EFT interactions? If there are good phenomenological NN interactions, why use an EFT? Do we expect high momentum distributions in nuclei to agree? Standard picture showing the Feynman diagrams at LO, NLO, N2LO, N3LO, N4LO, N5LO: content of these EFTs are the same at each order. There are other chiral EFT power counting formulations that differ in what appears at each order and how to treat higher orders (i.e., perturbative). Regularization choices are the difference: on the market now are non-local, local, and semi-local Motivations differ: non-local is soft and convenient with no partial wave mixing, local is usable for QMC, semi-local has reduced artifacts for long-distance pion physics. Which is best? Should all be equivalent *in principle* but regulator artifacts make them problematic. The different potentials manifest scale and scheme at the potential level. Matching at the breakdown scale. Breakdown scale versus regulator parameter. Don’t confuse them. One is physics, the other is not. EFT provides connection between pi-N (and pi-pi), NN, NNN; consistent currents; guide to diagrams to include; UQ; guide to breakdown We are *not* trying to decide which potential is best! \langle a^\dagger_q a_q \rangle

Chiral EFT expansion of nucleon-nucleon force [from R. Machleidt] Strong constraints from chiral symmetry + “Weinberg counting” Some stop here: can use as local V; consistent NN+3N; N3LO gets hard (??) [Test??] [This is not the regulator cutoff!] Recent: use statistical tests of convergence patterns Q = \frac{\mbox{momentum},m_\pi}{\Lambda_\chi} {\color[rgb]{1.000000,0.000000,0.000000}Q = \frac{\mbox{momentum},m_\pi}{\Lambda_\chi}} \Lambda_\chi \approx m_\rho \approx 600\mbox{--}700\,\mbox{MeV}

See PRC 96, 054002 for details (even more potentials now!) Separable: doesn’t mix partial waves and Fierz works; softer than local Try to minimize regulator artifacts (recent soft N4LO) Can use with QMC Should be connected by RG (but they’re not!)

If there are good phenomenological NN interactions, why use an EFT? Why are there so many different chiral EFT interactions out there now? Most chiral EFT NN+NNN have same physics content and power counting NnLO (with dissenters). Different regulators: non-local, local, semi-local; for technical reasons and/or minimizing artifacts. Regulation shouldn’t matter (at higher orders) but there are issues at present. Also fitting protocols. What are the differences between phenomenological and EFT interactions? If there are good phenomenological NN interactions, why use an EFT? Do we expect high momentum distributions in nuclei to agree? Weinberg-counting chiral EFT potential are not RG-invariant: We can’t “run” the cutoff to relate different cutoff values; they are fit independently to experiment. Ultimately would want to determine constants: insight from SRC experiments?

E.g., Eyser et al., Eur. Phys. J A 22, 105 (2004) (Smeared) contact terms parametrize boson exchange physics and everything else. Phys. Rev. C65, 044001 (2002) Contributions from loop integrals with high q absorbed in derivative expansion.

If there are good phenomenological NN interactions, why use an EFT? Why are there so many different chiral EFT interactions out there now? Most chiral EFT NN+NNN have same physics content and power counting NnLO (with dissenters). Different regulators: non-local, local, semi-local; for technical reasons and/or minimizing artifacts. Regulation shouldn’t matter (at higher orders) but there are issues at present. Also fitting protocols. What are the differences between phenomenological and EFT interactions? EFT model independence from completeness of operators; phenom. like Taylor expansion missing terms. But for NN, not much difference at low E beyond fine details of chiral symmetry (hard to see in nuclei). Breakdown scale of EFT is physical; not the same as the cutoff, but often taken comparable (not fit!). If there are good phenomenological NN interactions, why use an EFT? Do we expect high momentum distributions in nuclei to agree?

If there are good phenomenological NN interactions, why use an EFT? Why are there so many different chiral EFT interactions out there now? Most chiral EFT NN+NNN have same physics content and power counting NnLO (with dissenters). Different regulators: non-local, local, semi-local; for technical reasons and/or minimizing artifacts. Regulation shouldn’t matter (at higher orders) but there are issues at present. Also fitting protocols. What are the differences between phenomenological and EFT interactions? EFT model independence from completeness of operators; phenom. like Taylor expansion missing terms. But for NN, not much difference at low E beyond fine details of chiral symmetry (hard to see in nuclei). Breakdown scale of EFT is physical; not the same as the cutoff, but often taken comparable (not fit!). If there are good phenomenological NN interactions, why use an EFT? If you only care about NN, you might be better off with phenomenological modeling of high energy. Why EFT? QCD, consistent many-body forces and currents; connect pi-N, NN, NNN, …; UQ enabled. Do we expect high momentum distributions in nuclei to agree?

Only now are all ingredients (e. g Only now are all ingredients (e.g., consistent currents, UQ) being put together. Here: Epelbaum et al. from TRIUMF 2019 deuteron form factors (preliminary!) Consistent regularization for potential and two-body current respects chiral symmetry. Two-pion exchange NN couplings from rigorous pi-N scattering (long-range 3N, too!). Bayesian uncertainty quantification based on convergence pattern (68% band). Key goal: understand emergence of nuclear saturation (connected to radii, b.e.’s)

If there are good phenomenological NN interactions, why use an EFT? Why are there so many different chiral EFT interactions out there now? Most chiral EFT NN+NNN have same physics content and power counting NnLO (with dissenters). Different regulators: non-local, local, semi-local; for technical reasons and/or minimizing artifacts. Regulation shouldn’t matter (at higher orders) but there are issues at present. Also fitting protocols. What are the differences between phenomenological and EFT interactions? EFT model independence from completeness of operators; phenom. like Taylor expansion missing terms. But for NN, not much difference at low E beyond fine details of chiral symmetry (hard to see in nuclei). Breakdown scale of EFT is physical; not the same as the cutoff, but often taken comparable (not fit!). If there are good phenomenological NN interactions, why use an EFT? If you only care about NN, you might be better off with phenomenological modeling of high energy. Reasons for EFT: consistent many-body forces and currents; connect pi-N, NN, NNN, …; UQ enabled. Do we expect high momentum distributions in nuclei to agree? No, if you define a momentum distribution as probabilities of finding momentum q: Different EFT schemes will differ, as will unitary RG evolution of wfs without evolving operator. This is not from lack of information; these distributions are scale and scheme dependent. Can we relate? Should all these potentials give the same momentum distribution?

Separation between long- and short-distance physics is not unique! Observable (e.g. form factor) is independent of factorization scale, but pieces are not. But exactly the same result with softest potential if you evolve a†a

What is relevant for SRCs in the EFT paradigm? What is an OPE and how is it relevant to SRC physics? What happens to UV physics like SRCs with RG evolution? What scale and scheme should we use? Matching at the breakdown scale. Leading operators and correlations. What do they tell you?

What is relevant for SRCs in the EFT paradigm? EFT has a separation into long-distance physics, which is calculated explicitly order-by-order, and general parameterization of short-distance physics at matching scale. Evolve by RG to other scales. Tensor from pion exchange is long-range chiral EFT physics; “core” is unresolved ⇒ contact operators. What is an OPE and how is it relevant to SRC physics? What happens to UV physics like SRCs with RG evolution? What scale and scheme should we use? Matching at the breakdown scale. Leading operators and correlations. What do they tell you?

Cold atoms near unitarity: an OPE-RG-EFT perspective E. Braaten et al., arXiv:1008.2922 + … System of fermions with short-range interactions with large scattering length a. Described by QFT formulation of Zero-Range Model ``pionless EFT’’: UV cutoff Λ is required to make matrix elements of these operators well-defined. The short-distance OPE is an operator identity with ; for example: Contact is in many universal relations because dominant op. E.g., momentum density at large k from small |r|: [from non-analytic r!] \mathcal{H} = \sum_\sigma \frac{1}{m}\bm{\nabla}\psi^\dagger_\sigma \bm{\cdot} \bm{\nabla}\psi_\sigma^{(\Lambda)} + \frac{g(\Lambda)}{m} {\color[rgb]{1.000000,0.000000,0.000000}\psi_1^\dagger \psi_2^\dagger \psi_2 \psi_1^{(\Lambda)}} + \mathcal{V}_{\rm external} g(\Lambda) = \frac{4\pi a}{1 - 2a\Lambda/\pi} \usepackage{cancel} \usepackage{bm} \newcommand\Rvec{\bm{R}} \newcommand\rvec{\bm{r}} \newcommand\shalf{{\scriptstyle\frac12}} \newcommand\nablab{\bm{\nabla}} \psi^\dagger_\sigma(\Rvec-\shalf\rvec) \psi_\sigma(\Rvec+\shalf\rvec) = \psi^\dagger_\sigma \psi_\sigma(\Rvec) + \shalf\rvec\cdot[\psi^\dagger_\sigma\nablab \psi_\sigma(\Rvec) \nablab\psi^\dagger_\sigma \psi_\sigma(\Rvec) ] - \frac{r}{8 \pi} \underbrace{g(\Lambda)^2 {\color[rgb]{1.000000,0.000000,0.000000}\psi_1^\dagger \psi_2^\dagger \psi_2 \psi_1^{(\Lambda)}}}_{\rm finite} + \cdots C = \int\! d^3\!R \, g(\Lambda)^2 \langle\psi_1^\dagger \psi_2^\dagger \psi_2 \psi_1^{(\Lambda)}\!(\Rvec)\rangle Note that the ratio of in different states will be finite from cancellation!

What is relevant for SRCs in the EFT paradigm? EFT has a separation into long- and short-distance, which is calculated explicitly order-by-order. EFT model independence from completeness of operators; phen. like Taylor expansion missing terms. Tensor from pion exchange is long-range chiral EFT physics; “core” is unresolved ⇒ contact operators What is an OPE and how is it relevant to SRC physics? Operator product expansion (OPE) manifests factorization into state-independent coefficients for physics above matching scale and operators whose matrix elements are below matching scale. QFT basis for contact formalism. If leading operator dominates, then correlations! E.g., SRC/EMC What happens to UV physics like SRCs with RG evolution? What scale and scheme should we use? Matching at the breakdown scale. Leading operators and correlations. What do they tell you?

General result: separation of scales in loop integrals allows derivative expansion. See Scott Bogner’s talk for details

What is relevant for SRCs in the EFT paradigm? EFT has a separation into long- and short-distance, which is calculated explicitly order-by-order. EFT model independence from completeness of operators; phen. like Taylor expansion missing terms. Tensor from pion exchange is long-range chiral EFT physics; “core” is unresolved ⇒ contact operators What is an OPE and how is it relevant to SRC physics? Operator product expansion (OPE) manifests factorization into state-independent coefficients for physics above matching scale and operators whose matrix elements are below matching scale. QFT basis for contact formalism. If leading operator dominates, then correlations! E.g., SRC/EMC What happens to UV physics like SRCs with RG evolution? SRG makes unitary transformations, so no physics is lost, but reshuffled (same flaws as original!). Leading changes from UV physics can be expanded in contact operators, as with EFT (but no truncation). What scale and scheme should we use? Matching at the breakdown scale. Leading operators and correlations. What do they tell you?

Current operator evolution See Scott Bogner’s talk for context

What is relevant for SRCs in the EFT paradigm? EFT has a separation into long- and short-distance, which is calculated explicitly order-by-order. EFT model independence from completeness of operators; phen. like Taylor expansion missing terms. Tensor from pion exchange is long-range chiral EFT physics; “core” is unresolved ⇒ contact operators What is an OPE and how is it relevant to SRC physics? An operator product expansion (OPE) manifests factorization into state-independent coefficients for physics above matching scale and operators whose matrix elements are below matching scale. QFT basis for contact formalism. If leading operator dominates, then correlations! E.g., SRC/EMC. What happens to UV physics like SRCs with RG evolution? SRG makes unitary transformations, so no physics is lost, but reshuffled (same flaws as original!). Leading changes from UV physics can be expanded in contact operators, as with EFT (but no truncation). What scale and scheme should we use? In QCD, use RG change of scale to ensure perturbation theory is optimal; key is ability to evolve. More perturbative interactions are important for some ab initio many-body methods (e.g., coupled cluster or IM-SRG) but not others (QMC). Evolve to low scale for former, latter can use high scale. Is interpretation / extraction from experiment better for high scale? If so, can we evolve results? Matching at the breakdown scale. Leading operators and correlations. What do they tell you?

Is high momentum in a SRC like high density nucleonic matter? Is off-shell physics absolutely measurable? No, but it can be exploited! Is high momentum in a SRC like high density nucleonic matter? Is there a “hard core” in chiral EFT NN interactions? Is the EMC effect unexpected from the EFT perspective?

Is high momentum in a SRC like high density nucleonic matter? Is off-shell physics absolutely measurable? No, but it can be exploited! Long history in nuclear physics of trying to measure off-shell physics (D-state prob., NNγ, …). QFT perspective is clear: Only S-matrix can be measured. EFT exploits this for field redefinitions. But off-shell freedom can be used to simplify or reduce corrections; e.g., suppress 3N forces. Is high momentum in a SRC like high density nucleonic matter? Is there a “hard core” in chiral EFT NN interactions? Is the EMC effect unexpected from the EFT perspective?

Is high momentum in a SRC like high density nucleonic matter? Is off-shell physics absolutely measurable? No, but it can be exploited! Long history in nuclear physics of trying to measure off-shell physics (D-state prob., NNγ, …). QFT perspective is clear: Only S-matrix can be measured. EFT exploits this for field redefinitions. But off-shell freedom can be used to simplify or reduce corrections; e.g., suppress 3N forces. Is high momentum in a SRC like high density nucleonic matter? Tempting to connect but SRC highly virtual while matter has on-shell quasi-particles; what can be said? Note: precision at high density has to involve 3N contributions. Strangeness? Is there a “hard core” in chiral EFT NN interactions? Is the EMC effect unexpected from the EFT perspective?

Is high momentum in a SRC like high density nucleonic matter? Is off-shell physics absolutely measurable? No, but it can be exploited! Long history in nuclear physics of trying to measure off-shell physics (D-state prob., NNγ, …). QFT perspective is clear: Only S-matrix can be measured. EFT exploits this for field redefinitions. But off-shell freedom can be used to simplify or reduce corrections; e.g., suppress 3N forces. Is high momentum in a SRC like high density nucleonic matter? Tempting to connect but SRC highly virtual while matter has on-shell quasi-particles; what can be said? Note: precision at high density has to involve 3N contributions. Strangeness? Is there a “hard core” in chiral EFT NN interactions? A hard core is required for local potentials to explain NN phase shifts (e.g., S-wave change of sign). Chiral EFT with local regulators develop strong short-range repulsion from leading contact, but with non-local regulators comes from nucleon momentum dependence. Alternative pictures! Is the EMC effect unexpected from the EFT perspective?

Match OPE matrix elements: LO nucleon operators to isoscalar twist-two quark operators J.-W. Chen and W. Detmold, Phys. Lett. B 625, 165 (2005) For chiral EFT, can apply NDA (naïve dimensional analysis) to estimate coefficients: NDA works for fits to χPT, NN scattering, … Does it work for EMC coefficient?

Is high momentum in a SRC like high density nucleonic matter? Is off-shell physics absolutely measurable? No, but it can be exploited! Long history in nuclear physics of trying to measure off-shell physics (D-state prob., NNγ, …). QFT perspective is clear: Only S-matrix can be measured. EFT exploits this for field redefinitions. But off-shell freedom can be used to simplify or reduce corrections; e.g., suppress 3N forces. Is high momentum in a SRC like high density nucleonic matter? Tempting to connect but SRC highly virtual while matter has on-shell quasi-particles; what can be said? Note: precision at high density has to involve 3N contributions. Strangeness? Is there a “hard core” in chiral EFT NN interactions? A hard core is required for local potentials to explain NN phase shifts (e.g., S-wave change of sign). Chiral EFT with local regulators develop strong short-range repulsion from leading contact, but with non-local regulators comes from nucleon momentum dependence. Alternative pictures! Is the EMC effect unexpected from the EFT perspective? EFT for EMC: OPE first at QCD level then match to EFT for matrix elements; 2-body op. must be there! If mean-field estimate + chiral naturalness valid, then expected EMC slope is consistent with experiment. Dominance of leading two-body contact accounts for EMC-SRC correlation. Loopholes?

Other questions? Why are there so many different chiral EFT interactions out there now? What are the differences between phenomenological and EFT interactions? If there are good phenomenological NN interactions, why use an EFT? Do we expect high momentum distributions in nuclei to agree? What is relevant for SRCs in the EFT paradigm? What is an OPE and how is it relevant to SRC physics? What happens to UV physics like SRCs with RG evolution? What scale and scheme should we use? Is off-shell physics measurable? No, but it can be exploited! Is high momentum in a SRC like high density nucleonic matter? Is there a “hard core” in chiral EFT NN interactions? Is the EMC effect unexpected from the EFT perspective?

Extras

Matching chiral effective field theory to QCD Many-body currents are inevitable! Operators not forbidden are compulsory Symmetries limit what is allowed Complete set of operators order-by-order Power counting based on naturalness For chiral EFT, apply NDA (naïve dimensional analysis) to estimate coefficients: NDA works for fits to χPT, NN scattering, … Always have 1-, 2-, many-body operators! Pastore et al., AV18 wfs with χEFT currents \newcommand{\fpi}{f_{\pi}} {\color[rgb]{1.000000,0.000000,0.000000}{\cal L}_{\chi\rm eft} = c_{lmn} \left( \frac{N^\dagger(\cdots)N}{\fpi^2 \Lambda_\chi} \right)^l \left(\frac{\pi}{\fpi}\right)^m \left(\frac{\partial^\mu,m_\pi}{\Lambda_\chi}\right)^n \fpi^2\Lambda_\chi^2} \\ {\color[rgb]{0.000000,0.000000,1.000000}{ \fpi \sim 100\,\mbox{MeV}}, \qquad 1000 \geq \Lambda_\chi \geq 500 \Longrightarrow {1\over7}\leq{\rho_0\over\fpi^2\Lambda}\leq{1\over4}} \langle \Psi | \mathcal{O}_{\text{QCD}} | \Psi' \rangle = \langle \Psi | \sum_i\mathcal{O}_{\text{EFT}}^{(i)} | \Psi' \rangle

SRCs and the EMC effect in EFT Chen et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 (2017)